Members of Parliament/ MLA Local Area Development Scheme: India

Select Language Afrikaans Albanian Arabic Armenian Azerbaijani Basque Belarusian Bulgarian Bengali Catalan Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Traditional) Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Filipino Finnish French Galician Georgian German Greek Gujarati Haitian Creole Hebrew Hindi Hungarian Icelandic Indonesian Irish Italian Japanese Javanese Kannada Khmer Korean Latvian Lithuanian Macedonian Malay Maltese Marathi Nepali Norwegian Persian Polish Portuguese Punjabi Romanian Russian Serbian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swahili Swedish Tamil Telugu Thai Turkish Ukrainian Urdu Vietnamese Welsh Yiddish

This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content. You can help by converting these articles into an encyclopaedia-style entry, deleting portions of the kind normally not used in encyclopaedia entries. Please also fill in missing details; put categories, headings and sub-headings; and combine this with other articles on exactly the same subject. Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly on their online archival encyclopædia only after its formal launch. See examples and a tutorial.

MPs Local Area Development (MPLAD) scheme: India

From the archives of The Times of India 2007, 2009

SC upholds validity of MPLAD scheme

Dhananjay Mahapatra | TNN

New Delhi: Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutional validity of MPs Local Area Development (MPLAD) scheme, and by extension, the MLALAD scheme under which Rs 3,000 crore is put annually at the discretion of elected representatives for development work in their constituencies.

However, a five-judge Constitution bench, comprising Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan and Justices R V Raveendran, D K Jain, P Sathasivam and J M Panchal, expressed doubts about the effectiveness of accountability mechanism for the schemes under which each MP gets to recommend development works worth Rs 2 crore in his constituency.

The amounts earmarked by different states for the corresponding scheme for MLAs varies.

Significantly, the verdict did not cause terrible excitement among MPs. This was only partly because MPs were confident that the scheme would clear legal scrutiny. The subdued response also had to do with a reappraisal of the benefits of the scheme because of the pressure MPs face from their powerful constituents to distribute the work among particular contractors. MPs feel that the scheme has been hit by corruption with contractors and officials in nexus with politicians, and brings more infamy than praise.

MPs feel it would be much better if they were allowed to have a say in locating projects under official schemes for health centres and schools. SC said that “efforts must be made to make the accountability regime more robust”, but clarified that the existing loopholes in the current form of accountability regime inbuilt in the schemes were sufficient to pass the test and nullify the allegation of corruption in the allocation of money.

“Barring few irregularities, which are taken care of by the state audit authorities, the funds allocated under the MPLAD scheme are being properly monitored for better utilization to achieve the objectives of the scheme,” it said.

The 82-page judgment authored by Justice Sathasivam also effectively negated the demand for scrapping the schemes that gained currency after then Speaker Somnath Chatterjee had in 2005 said that they were devised to “sabotage the emergence of panchayats, which were autonomous of the weight-throwing MPs and MLAs”.

The demand for scrapping of the MPLAD and MLALAD schemes was also recommended in 2009 by the Administrative Reforms Commission, then headed by M Veerappa Moily, which had said the schemes “seriously erode the notion of separation of powers, as the legislator directly becomes executive” in the use of the funds.